August 12, 2012

Says Emily Bazelon, as she tries to cast Paul Ryan as another Sarah Palin. He's "a cute young thing with bright blue eyes." Good looks... must be like Sarah Palin...??? And her husband... says one Plotz. (To plotz is to faint from excitement.)

Of course, Ryan's deep grip of the specifics is not at all Palin-like. No one will be worrying about whether he knows how far away Russia is, even though he has no foreign policy experience, or can handling the prep for his debate with Joe Biden. Come to think of it, odds are that he will ice Biden, right?

It's so hard to say what you want to say! Oh, well, my husband's really cute!

Hey, imagine if Sarah Palin had written a post as flighty and disconnected as Bazelon's.

The first few days after a VP announcement are critical, especially when the nominee is a relative unknown. Dan Quayle in 1988 and George H. W. Bush in 1980 are testimony to that: Dan Quayle is a philosophical person who got portrayed as an idiot, and GHWB is a hero who got portrayed as a wimp.

Ryan is a _________ who will get portrayed as a __________. Not sure yet. Give lefties time.

I too am getting a strong tactical déjà vu from Bazelon & Givhans attacking Ryan along the same lines they went after Palin. But the catty bitchiness sorta doesn't work on the opposite sex the way it did against Palin. Their own ignorance of "math" already shows through. They will hoist themselves early and look like petards.

What the other side needs to fight Ryan is someone who slings numbers the way they sling words. I'm not sure they have anyone in their quiver.

Oh, and as Jay said, of course, the prime example is Sarah Palin, who is a star politico and effective manager who got portrayed as a bimbo. That one helped elect Obama. The first few days are crucial.

I don't see Ryan as especially cute. He's a nice enough looking man, but not extraordinarily handsome. I think of him as a well prepared budget and finance guy. I first thought he'd be a great candidate for President some day at the meeting with Obama where he was impressively knowledgeable and Obama was impressively rude.

I suppose it's to the left's advantage to encourage us to look at him like he's a bright little boy.

purplepenquin, your logic fails. SP said something. Tina Fey parodied it. The parody, as Jay said, is what portrayed SP as a moron. Do you really think people remember what SP actually said?

Ryan will be more difficult to portray as a moron, because his demeanor is very level, he's a man (that's unfair, but it's a fact), he's tall, he has out-smarted Dems on budgeting, and he has a national record. Lefties should cast the net wide: maybe Ryan's fondness for noodling is proof that he's an idiot! Maybe tall people are stupid! (Doesn't work with Shaq.) Come on, lefties! There's gotta be something!

Surprise, surprise. Another writer who admires words infinitely more than actions. Ryan's lack of executive experience and any real policy achievements are not at all Palin-like, either.

Hey, Ryan seems like a good pick, but let's not pretend that this is more about potential than actual experience and results. A lot of Republicans are projecting onto Ryan a set of core competencies that frankly aren't yet proven. Reminds me of the treatment given Obama in 08.

I'm don't want to sound like I'm against the pick at all. I hope Ryan succeeds wildly. As of yet, he's turned around as many struggling economies as Obama has: zero.

Mitt weighed the potential of Ryan against the actual results of guys like Portman and Pawlenty, and decided Ryan was worth the risk. We'll see. I'm pulling for him, but don't expect me to say 'Ryan will be great at this and that and that and this' because he hasn't done it yet.

For someone whose very brain seems to have become a mere reflection of the thoughts of her husband, this is a petty attack. Bazelon was making an interesting analysis of the Ryan-Palin comparison. Lay off. Not everything is worth bitching about.

Thanks for admitting you made a mistake. But I can't help but wonder...since you labeled the author a "moron" because you thought that her memory was faulty, does that mean you consider yourself a "moron" because it ended up that instead you are the one who is wrong?

Can you address the actual question? or are you too weak for that? SP was made out to be a moron, largely on TF's parody. Seriously, do you think that's not true? Gerald Ford was made out to be a klutz by Chevy Chase. It was funny, but untrue: Ford was an accomplished athlete. Doesn't truth matter, or do 8th-grade debating points win the game?

BTW, it's "Sarah". The h-sarahs and the non-h-saras tend to be careful about that.

purplepenquin, you make a good point. Like you, I remember people saying things. I remember that Obama once said there are 57 states. I also remember that Bill Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that woman. Some of these things are not really helpful in discerning the truth, though.

I guess it's a framing problem. You want to frame this as "Sarah Palin said something true" that proves that a funny satire of it well proves her to be a bimbo. I'd like to frame it as "Sarah Palin said something true" that proves lefties want to remember the parody, not the truth.

Or do you think otherwise? How many on your side "remember" what SP actually said?

Sarah Palin was such a bad pick for McCain that $10 million was donated to the McCain/Palin campaign in the 24 hours after the announcement.

Paul Ryan has brought in only about $4 million, but voters aren't as disheartened by Romney as they were by McCain, IMHO.

Ryan is a powerhouse without teleprompters. He will be a great smiling attack dog, taking on Obama's fairy dust approach to problem solving with facts and figures. Biden will need to wear Depends(TM) to debate him.

In Chicago HQ, We just got a secure message to our CORE (COmmittee to RE-elect) POTUS Team.

"Remind Biden that he memorize the line from Reagan and Mondale debate: I will not hold my age and experience against my opponent. He should use it only at the debate, so that it appears fresh. We need to destroy Ryan."

In 2009 I said the RNC was idiotic for not recruiting Palin to be their leader and bring in money. I still think they are but it is clear that Palin's success in identifying Tea Party candidates has led to far greater effective change than if she had been heading the RNC and been obligated to support corrupted Republican incumbents.

I credit her with Ted Cruz's total domination of Dewhurst here in Texas.

You want to frame this as "Sarah Palin said something true" that proves that a funny satire of it well proves her to be a bimbo. I'd like to frame it as "Sarah Palin said something true" that proves lefties want to remember the parody, not the truth.

Uhmm, nope. Not at all. I just noticed that Jay said something untruthful and wanted to correct it.

Didn't you just say that "truth matters"?

How many on your side "remember" what SP actually said?

*sigh*

Your assumptions about moi and any "sides" I am on are incorrect.

For someone who complains about grade-school tactics you sure seem to enjoy using a lot of 'em.

It's OK for Democrats to be good looking, but if a Republican happens to be good looking, it's all for show. Even though the smarts of Paul Ryan's brain is larger than all the democrat brains combined.

", the prime example is Sarah Palin, who is a star politico and effective manager who got portrayed as a bimbo. That one helped elect Obama. The first few days are crucial."

The event that sank Sarah as a candidate was the Katie Couric interview. Tina Fey did a great impression but the interview when she froze (or got edited) was the decisive moment.

Ryan has done hundreds of town halls in his district and has learned to explain complex issues so that ordinary people understand them.

I was relieved to see that Stephanie Cutter is still alive as she appeared on Face the Nation to spout a few talking points. I was afraid that she had decamped to another country to avoid indictment on that campaign/ Super PAC crime.

Have I mentioned that Joe Schmoe tells me that Emily Bazelon bears a striking resemblance to an idiot

Was I that obvious? ;)

I just really hated how in a few brief words she basically said "Articulate man good and smart; hokey accomplished woman bad and dumb." In an attempt to appear balanced, she makes some insinuation that Ryan will "ice Biden, right?" Right, as in she doesn't necessarily buy that he will, but it's accepted wisdom among conservatives.

I'm not surprised that someone who traffics in words and 'hits' is admiring of someone who is articulate and, thanks to his physical appearance, will garner lots of web hits over the next three months. I'm looking for more.

Since you're the only one who is playing a game I suppose it is only fitting that you get a point.

Heck! Feel free to take all the "points"...it doesn't really matter to me what kind of score you ring up for yourself.

I wasn't playing any games... certainly not any type of party-politics...but rather I just wanted to point out to Jay that his memory of the situation, while a common one, is incorrect.

Why are you trying to slap a label on me and divvy this up into "sides" simply because I pointed out his mistake? I see nothing-at-all partisan about my comments, but I know that some people perceive things differently. So can you please point out exactly what I said that leads you to think there is? Thanks.

When I started reading Althouse about a year and half ago, I'd guess, I never anticipated that Wisconsin would become the nexus of American politics. It's been quite a ride! Looking forward to the next few months.

This is a nonsensical statement to make in the light of the fact Urkel never had it when he became president nor as a 1.5 year senator. Now if you count the fact that he lived outside of the country as foreign policy experience then I'd say I have a larger edge than he does. Saying Ryan has no foreign policy experience is such a stupid statement to make and you are going to here this meme until election day.

She wrote some flightly completely misinformed piece for the Post (the Post!) about "mental illness." I was gonna get on there and comment but thought eh why bother. I didn't wanna go through another registration process if the truth be known.

Here's my Sunday morning show lake house take on Paul Ryan (wait, is his name really Paul?).

This is the VP nominee to be scared of.

This is what I said many months/years (?) ago. Personally I don't agree with him that much. But as Ann said, he's attractive, and the superficial-voting white people are gonna get behind him and say it's our turn. Biden don't sweeten the pot any, that's for sure. So this time, yeah, a VP nominee will make a difference. A BIG difference.

It's funny they still talk about Biden's foreign policy. Can they point out one, only one, foreign policy success story?

Elk, I remember before Biden was even named veep candidate, he was basically a joke within his own party. Once he was announced, all of sudden my Democrat friends and acquaintances flipped the switch and started touting him as a foreign policy genius. I got whiplash just from watching them reverse direction so quickly. You're right; not quite sure what he has to hang his hat on over the last four years. I'm sure the party apparatchiks will come up with something. Maybe brainstorm with some sympathetic Hollywood writers who haven't managed to catch on with any of the comic book/screenplay incarnations that are all the rage right now.

Speaking of movies, I read where the bin Laden movie coming out is called 'Zero Dark Thirty'. Really? Doesn't that sound like a parody of an action thriller movie? Made me instantly think of Threat Level Midnight.

purplepenquin, maybe I am wrongly maligning you. Maybe this is all libel.

But I encourage you to own up. Don't be a weenie. Step up and say what you think. "I am a deep thinker who dislikes dishonesty" is way too no-labels for you. You're capable of more. Own the lefty that you are.

Or maybe I'm wrong! Maybe you love conservative ideals. Maybe you're one of those weird libertarians who hates everyone. Go for it! But don't be a weenie.

Paul Ryan may be as handsome as Sarah Palin is beautiful, but the similarity ends there. Ryan has been in the house since his late 20's, he comes across as highly intelligent, he's well spoken with a strong smooth style, no hesitation, no awkwardness. He appears to be solid, not at all flighty.

No insult meant toward Palin Chickie, they are just very different.

I think some are trying to compare him to Palin because both come from states that may be considered backwaters. Wisconsin has put itself on the map since the protests, no one could or should confuse it with Alaska.

Not sure I understand your comment.Joe Biden is a baggy-pants vaudeville comedian that no one - not even Joe Biden - knows what he will say next.

Paul Ryan is the Republican frontman in the House on budgetary matters, and as far as I know, every bit as accomplished as he is presented. Romney deserves credit for picking someone who might easily become as celebrated as himself, if not even more so.

But of the potential V-P lineup - and it was a quite impressive one this year - Paul Ryan also is the most likely to appeal to the "Women's Vote," or at least a large swatch of it, on emotional grounds.

Thanks for admitting you made a mistake. But I can't help but wonder...since you labeled the author a "moron" because you thought that her memory was faulty, does that mean you consider yourself a "moron" because it ended up that instead you are the one who is wrong?

Um, no, because I'm not aware of anyone who was "worried" about whether or no Palin knew how far away Russia was.

But what is UP with these Republicans who nominate their VPs when it's the VPs who should be president? I guess the Reps are slow to catch on to the idea that it's all about charisma.

Poor Mitt Romney. He's gonna be so overshadowed.

Just to slightly disabuse you of this notion, let's do a little exercise. I'm not the biggest Mitt fan, but let's do this to shift the focus a little bit away from a media-type focus and into a real-world scenario. You know, where results matter just a teeny tiny little bit.

Let's say you are the hiring manager for the Presidency and Vice Presidency. You and you alone have the power to winnow down the list of prospective candidates and make the final hire.

Let's say you have two resumes in front of you. One guy is older, and he has a lot of positive private sector experience and even a few public sector experiences that he can tout. The other guy has worked his way up in his current position to about as far as he can go. He has some interesting ideas, but unfortunately he's worked for a company that has vastly underperformed over the last decade. It's hard to tell what real positive impact he's had on his company. Maybe he could soar if freed from the bad company. Maybe his ideas would prove unworkable.

Based solely on these resumes, which candidate are you going to slot for which position? Be honest here.

"Disabuse you of the notion!" I love the phrase! My lawyer relative used to say that to me all the time. You must be a lawyer. It's so wonderfully patronizing!

I think you are asking me to completely disengage from the dime-deep tenor of my comments (lake house Sunday morning talk show & superficial voting white people).

I wasn't saying what *I* would do. See, you and I apparently have vastly different ideas of how much time the voting public spends thinking about the candidates. Reading your comment alone was probably twice as much time as many, many people spend thinking about whom they will vote for.

Do you really want me to answer your comment? Seriously?

I will not vote in the Republican primary, but if you put a gun to my head it's not even close. I'd vote for Paul Ryan.

"Ryan is stupid" is not a meme that's going to work, so the next one will be "Ryan is evil". He's probably had dinner with the Koch brothers or something, so they'll be able to work with that a little more.

"To plotz" actually means "to explode." I'm surprised to see that only as sense 3 in the Urban Dictionary when every Jew I've ever heard use the word has used it in that sense, which makes sense because, like so much of Yiddish, it's straight from the German (note that you have to follow the pronunciation, not the spelling, and the "en" at the end of the German word signifies the infinitive form of the verb).

I'm just trying to offer perspective on why the ticket is aligned as it is. To me it's not as crystal clear that Ryan is miscast as the underling as it seems to others. Romney's got a lot on his resume that is compelling. If he had a scintilla of natural charisma, he would be a slam dunk.

Maybe we'll bet lucky and Ryan will misspell potato or maybe zucchini, trip on airplane steps, conk someone in the head with a golfball.

Why hasn't Obama conked anyone in the head with a golfball? Are there no crowds following around? All this time he was out there without adoring crowds? That right there shows me what a private unassuming basically bashful guy he is.

I watched the morning shows today and Democrats look very nervous. Axelrod was looking like he was about to have a seizure on This Week even though Steph was feeding him all his lines. I am starting to feel a bit more comfortable. Wretchard, at Belmont Club, is thinking landslide and he might be right. The polls are really crazy but the signs are there that something big is happening.

Ryan is exactly the spokesman that Romney needs. I think the foundation has been laid the past three years for the conversation about entitlements. Ironically, the biggest part of it was laid by Obama with the Simpson-Bowles Commission. If Obama had made even a half hearted gesture toward accepting the recommendations, he would be OK now. He didn't and he isn't.

Lefties are convinced that anyone who is "really intelligent" and "properly educated" is ipso facto a "prpgressive", therefore anyone not a progressive is dumb/stupid/ willfully ignorant/ or a mind-numbed follower of Rush.

See how you got that I meant "get" where I typoed "bet" yet you understood what I meant back there, without mistaking the typo for my customary goofing around? That happens all the time in sign language and those other languages too, but you know that, misspellings, accent marks going the wrong way, all kind of goofing around. There is no chance you will finish the sentence without politely changing 'bet' to 'get' without making a fuss. Before that I had to type the word 'style' six times before it came out right. It kept coming out scrambled and I thought about just leaving it that way knowing you'll sort it with no problem at all, you're all just that facile.

@Jeff, Russia does border Alaska? Did you sleep through your US geography class? Alaska has the distinction of being the only state that borders two foreign countries.

I thought it was mildly clever of Bazelon to phrase it the way she did -- it's not that she thinks her husband looks like Ryan, it's that some other dingbat she knows thinks so. A routine gambit, but properly played nevertheless.

Of course it would help if Bazelon actually posted a picture of the poor schlemiel.

Hearing Ryan speak is startling. His vocabulary in testimony is precise, each word attaches to a specific thing that you can see as items on a spreadsheet or pieces on a chessboard, solid things that can be moved around.

His opposite speaks of clouds and networks, needs and desires and emotions, ambiguous unmeasurable untrackable intangible codependencies, rhetorical amorphous puff, language is a tool, it touches, it obfuscates, tags things that they are not and insists the tag stick, not clarify. Language is to convince and to obscure not to clarify. Clarity means sharp edges and sharp edges are bad.

Here is where the sharp edges of logic and math intersect rhetoric and slice it to pieces. It's kind of scary, and I'm eager to see it.

While in the midst of the most scurrilous attacks against Romney.. not paying taxes for 10 years and killing a woman with cancer.. to now shift targets (assuming that Ryan is not going to force Obama to shift strategery) and not appear excessively extreme, to precious independents, who, according to political experts, are going to decide the election.

Long way of saying... Romneys pick is brilliant.. because it forces Obama to attack ideas.. ideas he doesn't have on fixing over 8% unemployment.

I'm a Dem, and this is the one move I did not want to see. It could be lights out."

The 60s live on in the Democratic Party. Those of us who are small L libertarians have nowhere else to go but the GOP. Three of my five kids were Obama voters and I wonder if any of them have figured out the situation. They should have but one is a federal employee, one is a lawyer and the third a grad student. We don't talk politics.

The one who is a grad student (31 years old), went to Cuba about 8 years ago as a socialist but she speaks Spanish and quickly figured out that it is a prison. She still hasn't made the next step but I think she has too much sense to miss the signs of impending collapse. The oldest is certain he will never see a dime of Social Security but he still seems to buy the Obama line.

Of course, hundreds of thousands are not telling pollsters (or maybe even their parents) how they are going to vote. That's why the polls are no good. It's more than the Bradley effect. It may be just unwillingness to admit a mistake in 2008.

The point is that it was absurd to claim that was some sort of foreign policy experience.

Perhaps you can remind us of Barack's foreign policy experience.Besides doing dope abroad, of course. Or his executive experience. Or if you are going to huff and puff and insist on comparisons with Biden, perhaps you can tell me why no EEG has found electrical activity of any kind in Biden's brain in the last thirty years. God rest his soul. Wait. He's alive isn't he? Barack America thinks so. I'm not joking.

But, trust me, yes, there is a way Democrats can and do talk among themselves about why they voted the way they did. For the umpteemth time, I voted for Obama in the primary but not the general, arguably the more "important" election.

I think you're going to see a ton of what happened in 2008 in reverse. I do think lots of white people are going to vote for not-Obama based on race, JUST AS tons of black people voted for the black guy in 2008.

AND - I think they're going to do that because they are pleased as punch with Mr Paul Ryan.

"It's clearly the Democrats who are ignorant, and don't realize how close Russia and Alaska are are the end of the Aleutians.

The point is that it was absurd to claim that was some sort of foreign policy experience."

That's a fair point but she wasn't claiming that alone was foreign policy experience. If you have been in Anchorage in summer, you have seen thousands of Russians running big flea markets selling stuff to Americans. There are lot of Russians in Alaska every summer.

Just had an epiphany!(as most of my good thoughts come) Remember during the recall, how obnoxious and overweening the recallers were, until the citizens had finally, with the vote, told them to STFU? How certain they were over victory?

My feeling for the mood of the country is that it will be at that point or even more so with the O'bots, and the sycophantic MSM.

I'm not going blowout...too many dummies are still going to vote for Zero for whatever stupid reason they have, but it might be a Electoral College blowout. And it will be a very significant spread for Romney. Not because of Ryan. But because people are getting sick and tired of the lies and obfuscations of the Zero in chief, and his minions.

The far end of the Aleutian Islands are in Russia, and the islands are not close together here - 200+ miles.

The mainlands of Asia and North America are approximately 52 miles apart at the narrowest part of the Behring Strait.

From the roof of my house (so that I can look over the trees), I can easily see the Sangre de Cristos above Santa Fe, Ladrones Peak down by La Joya, and Mt. Taylor near Grants, all of them 60 miles or so distant.

"The point is that it was absurd to claim that was some sort of foreign policy experience."

It was part of a larger explanation and she was 100% right and completely cogent about the fact that most people in the lower 48 view Russia as far away, on the other side of the whole world, when Alaska and Russia essentially share a border. Saying that Russia could be seen from Alaska merely put that into perspective.

The choice to become better informed or to remain ignorant partisans and attack her for it was a choice freely made.

Russia is as nearly a neighbor to Alaska as Canada is and as governor she negotiated with Canada to work out pipeline deals and certainly dealt with Russia on normal stuff, too. In addition to that, knowing what was going on in Russia, domestically, mattered to the Alaskan oil industry (and the ships going between the two countries, too, undoubtedly.) PLUS she was the CiC for the Alaskan National Guard which is tasked with keeping a military/strategic eye on the border with Russia, which is undoubtedly a lot of wing-wagging and mutual snap-shots between pilots, but is serious none-the-less.

That Democrats and their partisans spun this modest but significant experience into "I can see Russia from my house" doesn't make Sarah Palin dumb.

and though the Alaskan side looks to be flat marsh land, the Russian side is mountainous.

And Palin did no claim the Anchorage flea market for "foreign policy experience."She did say that as governor of Alaska, she had routinely to deal with the Russian government about everything from poaching in Alaskan waters (or U.S. in Russian waters), routine trading between the two countries, etc., to violations of U.S. airspace (Federal responsibility, but the governor gets to hear about it).

"Maybe you could ask that hole in bin Laden's head where his face used to be?"

"Mr. President, we've located Bin Laden. We have a plan to insert a small SEAL team and remove him. We believe it will work. What do you say?"

Twelve year old "president for a day" Billy Johnston, essay winner and Boy Scout, swallowed and blinked at the stern man facing him across the Oval Office desk. Not able to drag his eyes away from the hard blue chips that gleamed in the older man's face, not even to slip to one side to check out what his mother might be thinking, he slowly drew a breath and let it out again.

"Gentleman," he said, his voice hitching to a squeak and then settling again, even though puberty was yet a year or two away. "Gentlemen. We have a go."

Maybe you could ask that hole in bin Laden's head where his face used to be?

Maybe you can explain why on earth Obama should get any credit for a raid that A. was carried out by other persons whose lives were in danger, and B. would have been authorized by any breathing occupant of the White House?

@garage, what's interesting to me is the story that Valerie Jarrett managed to talk Obama out of authorizing the raid on bin Laden no fewer than three times. If true -- as apparently it is -- then that suggests a degree of vacillation that should not be tolerated in the White House.

AllieOop said...Paul Ryan may be as handsome as Sarah Palin is beautiful, but the similarity ends there. Ryan has been in the house since his late 20's, he comes across as highly intelligent, he's well spoken with a strong smooth style, no hesitation, no awkwardness. He appears to be solid, not at all flighty.

No insult meant toward Palin Chickie, they are just very different.

I think some are trying to compare him to Palin because both come from states that may be considered backwaters. Wisconsin has put itself on the map since the protests, no one could or should confuse it with Alaska.

Garage makes out that allowing Bin Laden being killed was some great foreign policy achievement. Other than Bill Clinton who blew the opportunity is there anyone in America who given the opportunity to issue the order would have declined to do so? Wait...Obama took a pass three times and was finally coerced to do so by Leon Panetta. Obama had zero foreign policy in 2008 and even today hasn't any.

The choice Romney made for VP versus Obama's tells us all we need to know about the candidates. Romney picks a serious man who one can seriously see as a back up president and Obama picked a court jester and buffoon. Enough said.

And if Bush or Cheney had put a hole in Bin Laden's head, garage would be condemning them for creating a martyr.

You know it's true.

We don't know, do we, if Bin Laden was first located when Obama was president or if Bush passed on his assassination for whatever reason.

Maybe someday we'll find out.

It could well be that Bush would have decided the risk of creating a Martyr to rally around was slight and done it anyway. It could have been that he preferred having a non-Martyr with his teeth pulled, and made a reasoned choice not dependent on blood-lust but on statesmanship, and ordered that Bin Laden be left alone unless he raised his head. Maybe he deliberately passed the decision on to his predecessor. We don't know.

As Hagar said, that raid was for domestic consumption and I'm glad that Bin Laden is dead.

Enough time had passed that his death didn't create a rally point as it might have done years earlier. It was, in fact, a cold-blooded assassination. I approve of decisions like that made in cold-blood. I'm proud of our men and glad Obama gave the order.

What I don't get is how revenge and blood is suddenly a liberal virtue.

The choice Romney made for VP versus Obama's tells us all we need to know about the candidates. Romney picks a serious man who one can seriously see as a back up president and Obama picked a court jester and buffoon. Enough said.

This

And, I think team Obama was pandering to us white guys with his Biden choice plus his decision to keep him on the ticket for the second go round. I mean, was Joe Biden the most qualified guy they had?

Garage makes out that allowing Bin Laden being killed was some great foreign policy achievement.

It was a great foreign policy achievement. I know you would much rather have bin Laden alive than have to give the slightest bit of credit to Obama. Because your hatred of Obama is greater than your love a country. Sick man. Just sick.

""Democrats like killing people". Michael K, just outrageous generalizations throughout this blog. I think some conservatives are feeling their oats, got a big boost from the Paul Ryan VP pick I guess.

But engaging in such hyperbole makes you sound like that moby who's hanging around the other thread."

It was a joke. Just like garage bragging about Obama's foreign policy skills.

---she did make a comment about how there are islands in Alaska where one can see Russia from

Grammar police!!

.. in Alaska from where one can see Russia.

Fact police!!!

The islands are separated by an international border....At the closest distance between Little Diomede and Big Diomede, the two islands are about 3.8 km (2.4 mi) apart. The small habitation on Little Diomede Island is centered on the west side of the island at the village of Diomede.

But Bush/Cheney did get Bin Laden. The info used to track the courier to OBL was obtained from inmates at Gitmo. The tracking was started under Bush. Obama"s big contribuation was simply to not get in the way. The only courage Obama managed to show was to give the OK without checking with Jarret. But, Obama did manage to delay the decision until his team could come up with a plan to blame someone else if the operation went wrong.

Technically, Obama did not give the order for the mission. He gave the order for control of the operation to be handled by the Marine General. In other words, Obama left the real decision making up to someone else.

I don't mean to put you on the spot Allie, but do you view a hot desire for the death of a particular (admittedly deserving) individual as the equivalent of loving your country?

Garage is being an ass and I haven't the first clue if he's even serious or not.

All I can say is what's inside my own head and I've been arguing for YEARS that killing Bin Laden is irrelevant. (I even agree that Clinton when he decided that assassination was not an acceptable US policy made a reasoned and moral decision, even if it did turn out very very badly.)

Like a lot of people (I'm sure) I've indulged in dead Bin Laden fantasies. I've killed him off in my fiction and enjoyed every moment of it. (John Ringo did that as well, only he got paid for it.) My husband reports the same sort of creation of satisfying scenarios.

But I sill think that, after a very early window of opportunity and after Bin Laden's direct participation faded away, his death remained in the "satisfying" column and entirely left the "relevant to anything else" column.

But I also think is that "kill Bin Laden" from the "left" became a cheap answer to accusations "you're soft on security" from the "right". It was proof that an anti-war apologist wasn't a wimp.

There may be an element of "war as a judicial exercise" belief in there, too, if I try to be fair. I disagree profoundly with that philosophical outlook, but it's coherent and would demand Bin Laden be "brought to justice."

Which, *garage*, does not make it a foreign policy triumph, but makes it a judicial enforcement accomplishment. Justice was served.

But foreign*policy, statesmanship or international relationships aren't involved in that except in the most marginal way. Yes, "we'll get you eventually" is a good warn-away to future mad-men. Other than that what foreign policy is involved?

Yes, Obama ordered someone killed. But he does that frequently, you know.

Somehow I dont see the killing of OBL as foreign policy; rather it has more to do with national security policy. And I am quite willing to give Mr Obama credit for continuing to whack AQ types with drones approving secret kill lists, even if it results in, ahem, collateral damage. And the willingness of the administration to leak national security secrets for what can only be assumed to be political gain is appalling.

that said, his mid east policy, his demarche to Iran, and relations with Russia have hardly produced any results, unless you count asking on an open mike Medeyev to talk to Vladimir to give him until after the election. Then there was his brilliant gaffe about the malvinas/maldives to the assembled heads of latin American states.

And I dont think this election is going to turn on foreign policy given the dismal state of the domestic economy. Foreign policy is simply not of interest to those who have to buy food and gas and keep a job.

Synova, I believe that accepting the responsibilities of the Comander in Chief and President, and then taking the fallout from his decision is loving one's country. Taking risks by making bold decisions in a moments time is showing love of ones country if one feels that the decision they have made is for the GOOD of the country.

He could've whiimped out and let the moment to kill him pass, history, would not have looked upon him kindly, or how could he have lived with himself if he let the opportunity go? It was the right thing to do, IMO.

The Bush administration did "get" bin Laden in that they located and shut down his financial network. Al Qaeda as a metastasized movement exists, but bin Laden himself had become an irrelevance.

For "foreign policy" purposes, it would have been better to just publicize the location and photos of that dilapidated compound, and if they had it, especially that video of bin Laden in his dingy bedroom watching porn on his 13-inch Sharps TV. Hugely embarrassing to al Qaeda and the Pakistan military intelligence sheltering him.

Ryan is exactly the spokesman that Romney needs. I think the foundation has been laid the past three years for the conversation about entitlements. Ironically, the biggest part of it was laid by Obama with the Simpson-Bowles Commission. If Obama had made even a half hearted gesture toward accepting the recommendations, he would be OK now. He didn't and he isn't.

All I can say is what's inside my own head and I've been arguing for YEARS that killing Bin Laden is irrelevant.

We brough his terror war into his own back yard and he was powerless to stop it. He became irrelevant with the Anbar awakening.For the record Leon Panetta gave the go ahead. Obama and Valery Jarret( who killed the first three actions) were informed after the wheels were put in motion.

"The Bush administration did "get" bin Laden in that they located and shut down his financial network. Al Qaeda as a metastasized movement exists, but bin Laden himself had become an irrelevance."

Until the New York Times blew the whole thing using leaks from DoJ folks that Bush left in place from the Clinton days. The SWIFT program was far more important than killing bin Laden. I will add that Obama's subsequent leaks have exceeded anything from the NY Times in the Biush years.

Seriously, GM. You continually surprise me. Whenever I think you've plumbed the depths of ignorance and double-speak buffoonery you devise a way to dig the chasm even deeper.

Bin Laden's death is in a no way a foreign policy achievement. The real heroes are those men and women whose deserved plaudits and accolades have been shameless STOLEN by that jackanape who sits in the Oval Office -- the real achievers are the officers and agents of the CIA who gathered the first intelligence on OBL's whereabouts, and the technicians and analysts of the National Reconnaissance Office who detected the "Pacer" in that compound in Abbottabad, and the CIA covert operatives who at appalling risk scouted out the suspected compound and determined OBL's presence with as much certainty as could be had, and lastly the members of SEAL Team Six, Delta Force members and helicopter crewmen who faced even greater danger to carry out the raid. To lay laurels at the feet of Obama and his minions for this is indecent. For Obama to accept them is the act of a coward and fraud.

Allie Oop wrote:Paul Ryan may be as handsome as Sarah Palin is beautiful, but the similarity ends there. Ryan has been in the house since his late 20's, he comes across as highly intelligent, he's well spoken with a strong smooth style, no hesitation, no awkwardness. He appears to be solid, not at all flighty.

No insult meant toward Palin Chickie, they are just very different.

I think some are trying to compare him to Palin because both come from states that may be considered backwaters. Wisconsin has put itself on the map since the protests, no one could or should confuse it with Alaska.

I think people confuse Palin's "Ok dokie" "you betcha" type speech with not being well spoken, but if you watch her on a lot of the talk shows she does not come across like an airhead. A lot of that is probably a dialect issue that comes across as strange to Eas Coast ears. When watching the movie Fargo, I get the same sensation. The characters are not dumb, they just talk funny. "the heck d'ya mean?" It sounds strange.Palin is at her worst when they catch her in an off the cuff statement where she has to come up with specific details and says things imperfectly. Yet, more often than not, though inartful, she actulaly proves to be more right in her statements than those trying to suggest she's an airhead.

I think Ryan, is much better at articulating policy positions in a clear way, but a lot of that comes from the fact that he is in the HOuse and is perfectly aware of how bills are created and written. Palin is better at big picture speeches that articulate conservative values.

"I think Ryan, is much better at articulating policy positions in a clear way, but a lot of that comes from the fact that he is in the HOuse and is perfectly aware of how bills are created and written. Palin is better at big picture speeches that articulate conservative values."

He also does hundreds of town halls in his district. He will be a huge asset. The only worry is that, if Obama sees himself losing, he will declare war on Iran in October. Nothing is beneath him.

...especially the parts where the White House divulged the tradecraft of the raid, betraying sources, methods and intel yield and in addition getting a Pakistani source sentenced to 30+ years in prison for his trouble.

Ms. Sarah seems to be on remarkably close and familiar terms with this ghostwriter if indeed they do not inhabit the same body.Perhaps he, or she, lives in a secret bunker under the concrete slab and only comes up at night when the Palins do not have house guests?

On the question of government creating jobs that Alex asked way up thread:

It's true that the government can do very little to create real net contributor jobs long term. Face it, any money used by the government to directly "create" jobs has to be taken from successful people who are already doing that better without the middle men of the bureaucracy laundering it first.

What they can do is mostly stop the attack, and use rhetoric to give capital some confidence. They can stop making those with capital fearful that their very success will be pounced on like red meat in the Serengeti. They can stop expecting that job creators will fund politically motivated experiments on top of the experiment of their own business plans. The idea that the real job creators can fund both their own risky experiments and those of others like Solyndra is scary stupid.

Successful business can fund itself and a certain amount of government as well, but when those businesses expect the government will want too much, they start to retrench and preserve their capital rather than risk it. It's surprisingly emotional and gut driven, but fact-based.

Obama not only has pushed legislation that scares capital, but he has foolishly attacked the golden goose with rhetoric that is probably more damaging than even the reality. Put both together and we just say, I'll wait, because this never works and eventually things will get better, and I can make money and hire people when the politicians stop looking to take so much of it. That's why Obama has failed so badly.

They can't pass bad policy and then lie about it to make it OK, but they can pass liberating policy or even none to better effect, and it's just stupid either way to rhetorically attack investors and risk takers. An unforced error for political gain.

Things like: Obamacare, screwing the GM bondholders and rewarding the union, people knowing that Obama's friends and appointees are mostly hateful of capitalism and business, all pushes down confidence that business will be free to thrive.

There are tons of details of policy here and there in every industry where this is seen close up, but in general the entire economy is simply waiting for a clearer day. You don't plant your seed in the middle of winter, and winter always passes...eventually.

Government can't create jobs, but it can let them grow. Government is a reaper, and has no seed that it hasn't taken from a farmer.

Alex, it doesn't matter if it's rational or not, the effect is the same. And it's hardly irrational. The class warfare is pretty much message one for the Democrats. It would be irrational to not take them serious about it.

I've wondered since 2009 what Obama, Pelosi, and Reid think makes sense. One might suppose they would want the world to become better, but they don't act that way.

They probably want people to be happy, and they probably know that to be happy people need to get ahead. But they apparently hate humans, so they probably want to halt all human progress by any means possible.

These dolts want themselves to get ahead first, and want Gaia to get ahead second, and want third to stomp on the necks of rich and successful people, except for those who support these dolts.

They just don't realize or don't want to accept that both have a limit to how much they can be taxed before they lose vitality, and that vitality is everything we all love one way or another.

Both ideologies have their corruption, but the left's overreaching is much more insidious and dangerous. Like an addiction, it feels good, even while it does it's damage. The right's dangers are right out there in the open, wealth disparity, inequality, capital concentration. Big, obvious, easy to attack, and always targets. All self-limiting in a democracy. Jefferson never had to warn us that the rich would outvote the less rich.

@garage: "The point is that it was absurd to claim that was some sort of foreign policy experience."

Why? Governors always face criticism for lack of foreign policy experience when they run against Senators and other Washington insider types. And governors of border states always use their experience in dealing with relatively minor local issues such as cross-border trade missions, transport, and fish and game management to deflect such criticism.

Janet Napolitano, ex-governor of Arizona, said very much the same kind of things at her Senate confirmation hearings to be Homeland Security secretary.

You can argue that Palin's experience was trivial next to the years Joe Biden spent on the Foreign Relations committee, with good reason. However, it takes either malignant bad faith or shocking ignorance to argue that it is in any way unusual or wrong for a governor of our only state bordering two foreign countries to point to that fact in a Presidential race.